Anonymous wrote:No argument that he abused his girlfriend. There was also testimony that she was directing some of the freak offs and was into it. There was zero evidence he was running some kind of criminal enterprise. He hired sex workers and they all partied and lived out his fetishes. Weird yes. Illegal not sure. Sex workers also testified that they were asked if they wanted to participate. Makes me wonder if he consulted what was legal or not. We cannot be sending people to jail for life for a crime they did not do even if it is a guy who abuses his girlfriend. At least he settled financially with the girlfriend for his abusive behavior. He is not a good guy.

He's lucky he returned Cassie's moms payment. He would be on the hook for black mail and extorsion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jurors have sent a question to the judge already. This will be interesting; the notes can be an indication of where the jurors' minds are. Waiting on the press to tweet out what was in the note and what the judge responded....

Juror 25 is a 51-year-old gay man who lives with his boyfriend. He studied veterinary medicine and has a Ph.D. in molecular biology

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He paid for tickets across state lines, he paid for a hotel across state lines, he paid sex workers, and he abused women who tried to say no. How are you all saying it's not racketiring?

He's an exploitative and coercive individual who thought he could do whatever he wanted without restraint. But is that what racketeering is? I thought there needed to be evidence of intent to make money?

That's false. There does not need to be an intent to make money in every RICO charge.

Weird. I thought that was the whole point of racketeering.

That’s a common misconception, but racketeering doesn’t always require an intent to make money. Under U.S. law, specifically the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), racketeering refers to committing certain serious crimes called “predicate acts” as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The key idea is a pattern of criminal activity connected to an enterprise, not necessarily financial gain. So even if someone isn't profiting directly, their repeated criminal behavior within a group can still qualify as racketeering.

In Diddy's case, the jurors must unanimously find at least two of the following predicate acts to convict under RICO:
Sex trafficking (force, fraud, or coercion)—specific counts involving ex-girlfriends Cassie and "Jane"
Transportation for prostitution—two counts based on moving individuals across state lines to engage in sex
Kidnapping (and conspiracy or aiding/abetting kidnapping)
Arson (and related aiding/abetting or conspiracy)
Bribery of a witness
Witness tampering
Forced labor
Distribution of controlled substances (e.g., ketamine, cocaine, ecstasy, meth, GHB, oxycodone, “Tusi”)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He paid for tickets across state lines, he paid for a hotel across state lines, he paid sex workers, and he abused women who tried to say no. How are you all saying it's not racketiring?

He's an exploitative and coercive individual who thought he could do whatever he wanted without restraint. But is that what racketeering is? I thought there needed to be evidence of intent to make money?

That's false. There does not need to be an intent to make money in every RICO charge.

Weird. I thought that was the whole point of racketeering.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He paid for tickets across state lines, he paid for a hotel across state lines, he paid sex workers, and he abused women who tried to say no. How are you all saying it's not racketiring?

He's an exploitative and coercive individual who thought he could do whatever he wanted without restraint. But is that what racketeering is? I thought there needed to be evidence of intent to make money?

That's false. There does not need to be an intent to make money in every RICO charge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the minors? Where is the federal tax evasion? Where are 20 plus years of sex tapes he had of compromised politicians, business executives, & A-list celebrities? Where are the homicides and violent crimes?

.......he is just a drug addicted bisexual cuck and a mean boyfriend? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What are you going on about? The prosecution did not bring any charges for this stuff, which would indicate there was no evidence of these things. It's all internet gossip. As far as violent crimes, did you not see the Cassie hotel video?

That tape didn't show any life in federal prison behavior. Most woman beaters never spend more than a night in jail.

He's not charged with the beating shown in that tape.

Anonymous wrote:The jurors have sent a question to the judge already. This will be interesting; the notes can be an indication of where the jurors' minds are. Waiting on the press to tweet out what was in the note and what the judge responded....

Anonymous wrote:He paid for tickets across state lines, he paid for a hotel across state lines, he paid sex workers, and he abused women who tried to say no. How are you all saying it's not racketiring?

He's an exploitative and coercive individual who thought he could do whatever he wanted without restraint. But is that what racketeering is? I thought there needed to be evidence of intent to make money?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the minors? Where is the federal tax evasion? Where are 20 plus years of sex tapes he had of compromised politicians, business executives, & A-list celebrities? Where are the homicides and violent crimes?

.......he is just a drug addicted bisexual cuck and a mean boyfriend? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What are you going on about? The prosecution did not bring any charges for this stuff, which would indicate there was no evidence of these things. It's all internet gossip. As far as violent crimes, did you not see the Cassie hotel video?

That tape didn't show any life in federal prison behavior. Most woman beaters never spend more than a night in jail.

So is this prosecutorial over-reach? The man is clearly disgusting and abusive to his girlfriends, but the charges don't exactly hold up.

The jurors have sent a question to the judge already. This will be interesting; the notes can be an indication of where the jurors' minds are. Waiting on the press to tweet out what was in the note and what the judge responded....

Anonymous wrote:Where are the minors? Where is the federal tax evasion? Where are 20 plus years of sex tapes he had of compromised politicians, business executives, & A-list celebrities? Where are the homicides and violent crimes?

.......he is just a drug addicted bisexual cuck and a mean boyfriend? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What are you going on about? The prosecution did not bring any charges for this stuff, which would indicate there was no evidence of these things. It's all internet gossip. As far as violent crimes, did you not see the Cassie hotel video?

He should be found guilty. I hope he is. What he did isn’t right, and those women didn’t really have a good way to get out.

Where are the minors? Where is the federal tax evasion? Where are 20 plus years of sex tapes he had of compromised politicians, business executives, & A-list celebrities? Where are the homicides and violent crimes?

.......he is just a drug addicted bisexual cuck and a mean boyfriend? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I haven’t followed this case as closely as I would’ve liked because there aren’t cameras in the courtroom and it’s a bit too graphic anyway, but based on the recaps I’ve seen, this feels a bit like a malicious prosecution. The fact that comey’s daughter is one of the prosecutors isn’t surprising. The comey’s like to use high profile cases to make a name for themselves ala Martha Stewart, which was so absurd and egregious when you look back on it years later.

But back to diddy, this entire trial seems like an overreach and brought largely to embarrass. In the end, the prosecution didn’t find any evidence of white collar crime, tax evasion, illegal weapons. His business was very above board from what I understand. The prosecution went through the whole trial, and at the very end voluntarily dismissed three of their own claims. Why bring them in the first place if you can’t meet your burden? To use the judicial system to embarrass Diddy and make the jury dislike him.

From what I understand, the prosecution wants the jury to convict Diddy for things like “distribution” because he bought the drugs for the parties and everyone used them. If that’s the standard, a lot of people would be in jail. Even the ST is incredibly gray because the women were ordering the workers etc in many cases.

Diddy is not a sympathetic defendant, so I don’t know how this will shake out. The jury may just want to convict b/c he’s a bad guy who hits women. But that’s not the charge and this seems to border on malicious prosecution.